search_vulnerabilities

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful context about the default base URL and the VULNMCP_LOOKUP_URL environment variable override. However, it omits other behavioral traits like pagination or rate limits, but with annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a concise two-sentence structure: the first sentence states the purpose, the second provides configuration context. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, making it efficient and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, all optional) and the presence of an output schema, the description is notably minimal. It doesn't explain how filters interact, typical usage scenarios, or any behavioral details beyond the base URL. The output schema helps, but the description still feels under-specified for a tool of this scope.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% — every parameter has a description, so the schema carries the full burden. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it 'Search vulnerabilities on Vulnerability Lookup with filters,' which specifies the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools by naming the resource (vulnerabilities), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_vulnerability. A solid, clear purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or how filters should be applied. The description only mentions the base URL and environment variable, which is configuration rather than usage guidance. There is no mention of exclusions or preferred contexts.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.